Re: Normative references to Workers.

2015-09-21 Thread Arthur Barstow

On 9/21/15 5:54 AM, Ms2ger wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 09/21/2015 11:05 AM, Xiaoqian Wu wrote:

If it helps, I’d like to prepare a Workers draft to revise the
previous CR, and schedule the publication ASAP (hopefully 22 Sep).
The goal is to synchronise with the upstream, to document the
changes since the previous CR and to identify the "at risk”
features.


OK, thanks (and please let me know when a draft CR is ready and then 
I'll start a CfC to publish it).



Why?


I think the rationale was mentioned in 
.


-AB





Re: Normative references to Workers.

2015-09-21 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Arthur Barstow  wrote:
> On 9/21/15 5:54 AM, Ms2ger wrote:
>> Why?
>
> I think the rationale was mentioned in
> .

Ms2ger made a valid point. Workers is actively being updated (I
submitted two PRs the other day, more to come). If you don't want to
get out-of-sync you won't get to REC in the foreseeable future. It
therefore is likely a waste of time for someone to volunteer to
copy-and-paste text that is unstable.


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/



Re: Normative references to Workers.

2015-09-21 Thread Ms2ger
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 09/21/2015 11:05 AM, Xiaoqian Wu wrote:
> If it helps, I’d like to prepare a Workers draft to revise the 
> previous CR, and schedule the publication ASAP (hopefully 22 Sep). 
> The goal is to synchronise with the upstream, to document the
> changes since the previous CR and to identify the "at risk”
> features.
> 

Why? What are you trying to achieve that makes doing that a good use
of your time (and the time of everyone else in that toolchain)?

Thanks
Ms2ger

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJV/9PeAAoJEOXgvIL+s8n2AokIAJH7kcGJmSrNKn/SyKBeNGPH
INFwRIw8vReupG7g5rrIc9fErpV/4r/15dcpz87Z7IRx1S+Ne/6IrGWLnJMx+Boc
x7mvGW7rPm2Jqnq9S6s8W2n+QpFa4Z+2haznH+p9divt79Y7fYIhtwrcNEYc6z6c
Hs7wcfWGrCd7DbpjjMS2RdKls0YEHOkfu6VIi9wqn+DpFLXOYVgSg8CbiDtaRJiy
Pnjh3GuAl8hizW30tCUFF+YlELxQmRL6ojWnSb6AcD//VB+dFS3Jtf8QFEeL934i
kDQjyR1TUFlz7t3Xa409D48qpyG7/5s580KX5gRq0mFU8IhtzP2BNKMLgfgqvyw=
=X2q+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Re: Normative references to Workers.

2015-09-21 Thread Xiaoqian Wu

> On 22 Sep, 2015, at 1:35 am, Anne van Kesteren  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Arthur Barstow  wrote:
>> On 9/21/15 5:54 AM, Ms2ger wrote:
>>> Why?
>> 
>> I think the rationale was mentioned in
>> .
> 
> Ms2ger made a valid point. Workers is actively being updated (I
> submitted two PRs the other day, more to come). If you don't want to
> get out-of-sync you won't get to REC in the foreseeable future. It
> therefore is likely a waste of time for someone to volunteer to
> copy-and-paste text that is unstable.
> 

Thanks for explaining the situation :)

If the spec is still changing frequently, indeed it isn't a good idea to 
publish another CR… but the WebApps WG needs to clearly tell the community that 
the 2012 CR should be considered obsolete. 

I’d suggest that we publish a WD for Workers, which adapts to the current 
changes and revise the 2012 CR. The community is encouraged to refer to either 
the WHATWG version or the new WD. 

—
xiaoqian

> 
> -- 
> https://annevankesteren.nl/
> 




RE: Normative references to Workers.

2015-09-21 Thread Domenic Denicola
From: Xiaoqian Wu [mailto:xiaoq...@w3.org] 

> If the spec is still changing frequently, indeed it isn't a good idea to 
> publish another CR… but the WebApps WG needs to clearly tell the community 
> that the 2012 CR should be considered obsolete. 
>
> I’d suggest that we publish a WD for Workers, which adapts to the current 
> changes and revise the 2012 CR. The community is encouraged to refer to 
> either the WHATWG version or the new WD. 

The best way to accomplish this may be to do the same as has been done with 
other specs, and either redirect to the original source document (e.g. as has 
been done with Fullscreen) or replace the WD and CR with NOTEs directing 
visitors to the source document.


Re: Normative references to Workers.

2015-09-21 Thread Xiaoqian Wu

> On 16 Sep, 2015, at 8:17 pm, Arthur Barstow  wrote:
> 
> On 9/16/15 4:47 AM, Mike West wrote:
>> Note that this is an issue that's going to come up for a number of WebAppSec 
>> specs (see 
>> https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/#issue-a30f61b8 
>> , 
>> for instance (and that spec also needs a few things that are missing from 
>> W3C's HTML, but are present in WHATWG's)). What I hear so far on this thread 
>> is that we should simply reference the WHATWG version of those specs, which 
>> seems like a reasonable thing to do.
> 
> Yes, for the scenario you mention, I agree with you.
> 
> The grey area is when a feature is defined by both a W3C WG and WHATWG. 
> Because of the consortium's Patent Policy, I suspect consensus among 
> consortium members is to use the W3C spec for normative references. However, 
> if the W3C spec is no longer actively maintained by a WG, then normatively 
> referencing a WHATWG spec would (IMHO) be appropriate and I think the 
> Normative Reference Policy [NRP] supports such a scenario.
> 
> In this specific case, I don't believe anyone has committed to actively 
> maintain W3C Web Workers. As such, WebApps - do we have a volunteer? Please 
> let us know (or send me private e-mail if you prefer).

If it helps, I’d like to prepare a Workers draft to revise the previous CR, and 
schedule the publication ASAP (hopefully 22 Sep). The goal is to synchronise 
with the upstream, to document the changes since the previous CR and to 
identify the "at risk” features. 

Thanks.

--
xiaoqian

> 
> -Thanks, AB
> 
> [NRP] 
> 
> 
>> 
>> -mike
>> 
>> --
>> Mike West >, @mikewest
>> 
>> Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany, 
>> Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der Gesellschaft: 
>> Hamburg, Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores
>> (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)
>> 
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 7:31 PM, Mike West > > wrote:
>> 
>>The "Upgrade Insecure Requests" specification[1] references the
>>WHATWG HTML spec for the
>>"set up a worker environment settings object" algorithm[2], as the
>>Web Workers Candidate Recommendation from May 2012[3]
>>substantially predates the entire concept of a "settings object",
>>and because the WHATWG is the group where work on Workers seems to
>>be being done.
>> 
>>This referential choice was flagged during a discussion of
>>transitioning the Upgrade spec to CR, where it was noted that the
>>Web Workers editor's draft from May 2014 does contain the
>>referenced concept[4].
>> 
>>It seems appropriate, then, to bring the question to this group:
>>does WebApps intend to update the Workers draft in TR? If so, is
>>there a path forward to aligning the Workers document with the
>>work that's happened over the last year and a half in WHATWG?
>>Alternatively, does WebApps intend to drop work on Workers in
>>favor of the WHATWG's document?
>> 
>>It would be helpful if we could get some clarity here. :)
>> 
>>Thanks!
>> 
>>[1]: https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/upgrade/
>>[2]:
>>
>> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/workers.html#set-up-a-worker-environment-settings-object
>>[3]: http://www.w3.org/TR/workers/
>>[4]: https://w3c.github.io/workers/
>> 
>>--
>>Mike West >, @mikewest
>> 
>>Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München,
>>Germany, Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der
>>Gesellschaft: Hamburg, Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine
>>Elizabeth Flores
>>(Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to
>>emails. Bleh.)
>> 
>> 
> 
> 




Re: Normative references to Workers.

2015-09-16 Thread Arthur Barstow

On 9/16/15 4:47 AM, Mike West wrote:
Note that this is an issue that's going to come up for a number of 
WebAppSec specs 
(see https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/#issue-a30f61b8 
, 
for instance (and that spec also needs a few things that are missing 
from W3C's HTML, but are present in WHATWG's)). What I hear so far on 
this thread is that we should simply reference the WHATWG version of 
those specs, which seems like a reasonable thing to do.


Yes, for the scenario you mention, I agree with you.

The grey area is when a feature is defined by both a W3C WG and WHATWG. 
Because of the consortium's Patent Policy, I suspect consensus among 
consortium members is to use the W3C spec for normative references. 
However, if the W3C spec is no longer actively maintained by a WG, then 
normatively referencing a WHATWG spec would (IMHO) be appropriate and I 
think the Normative Reference Policy [NRP] supports such a scenario.


In this specific case, I don't believe anyone has committed to actively 
maintain W3C Web Workers. As such, WebApps - do we have a volunteer? 
Please let us know (or send me private e-mail if you prefer).


-Thanks, AB

[NRP] 




-mike

--
Mike West >, @mikewest

Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, 
Germany, Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der 
Gesellschaft: Hamburg, Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine 
Elizabeth Flores

(Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 7:31 PM, Mike West > wrote:


The "Upgrade Insecure Requests" specification[1] references the
WHATWG HTML spec for the
"set up a worker environment settings object" algorithm[2], as the
Web Workers Candidate Recommendation from May 2012[3]
substantially predates the entire concept of a "settings object",
and because the WHATWG is the group where work on Workers seems to
be being done.

This referential choice was flagged during a discussion of
transitioning the Upgrade spec to CR, where it was noted that the
Web Workers editor's draft from May 2014 does contain the
referenced concept[4].

It seems appropriate, then, to bring the question to this group:
does WebApps intend to update the Workers draft in TR? If so, is
there a path forward to aligning the Workers document with the
work that's happened over the last year and a half in WHATWG?
Alternatively, does WebApps intend to drop work on Workers in
favor of the WHATWG's document?

It would be helpful if we could get some clarity here. :)

Thanks!

[1]: https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/upgrade/
[2]:

https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/workers.html#set-up-a-worker-environment-settings-object
[3]: http://www.w3.org/TR/workers/
[4]: https://w3c.github.io/workers/

--
Mike West >, @mikewest

Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München,
Germany, Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der
Gesellschaft: Hamburg, Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine
Elizabeth Flores
(Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to
emails. Bleh.)







Re: Normative references to Workers.

2015-09-15 Thread Tab Atkins Jr.
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Mike West  wrote:
> The "Upgrade Insecure Requests" specification[1] references the WHATWG HTML
> spec for the
> "set up a worker environment settings object" algorithm[2], as the Web
> Workers Candidate Recommendation from May 2012[3] substantially predates the
> entire concept of a "settings object", and because the WHATWG is the group
> where work on Workers seems to be being done.
>
> This referential choice was flagged during a discussion of transitioning the
> Upgrade spec to CR, where it was noted that the Web Workers editor's draft
> from May 2014 does contain the referenced concept[4].
>
> It seems appropriate, then, to bring the question to this group: does
> WebApps intend to update the Workers draft in TR? If so, is there a path
> forward to aligning the Workers document with the work that's happened over
> the last year and a half in WHATWG? Alternatively, does WebApps intend to
> drop work on Workers in favor of the WHATWG's document?

Agreed with Hixie; the WHATWG spec is the most recent normative
version of that section, and should be referenced instead.  Remember,
there's nothing wrong with reffing WHATWG specs.  It will not delay or
hamper your publication or Rec-track advancement, despite the
occasional misinformed complaint from someone not aware of the
policies.

~TJ



Re: Normative references to Workers.

2015-09-15 Thread Ian Hickson
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Mike West wrote:
> 
> It seems appropriate, then, to bring the question to this group: does
> WebApps intend to update the Workers draft in TR?

FWIW, I think the W3C should get out of the business of republishing 
WHATWG specifications. It's just adding confusion, especially since the 
W3C drafts are invariably out of date. IMHO the "Upgrade Insecure 
Requests" specification should just reference the WHATWG spec.

-- 
Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'



Re: Normative references to Workers.

2015-09-15 Thread Daniel Veditz
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. 
wrote:

> ​there's nothing wrong with reffing WHATWG specs.  It will not delay
> ​ or hamper​
>
> publication or Rec-track advancement, despite the
> ​ occasional misinformed​
>
> complaint from someone not aware of the
> ​ ​
> policies.
>

​When the complaint comes from the office of the Director we have to assume
it's going to hamper us whether or not they are misinformed.

-Dan Veditz​


Re: Normative references to Workers.

2015-09-15 Thread Philippe Le Hegaret

On 09/15/2015 03:26 PM, Daniel Veditz wrote:

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. > wrote:

​there's nothing wrong with reffing WHATWG specs.  It will not delay
​ or hamper​

publication or Rec-track advancement, despite the
​ occasional misinformed​

complaint from someone not aware of the
​ ​
policies.


​When the complaint comes from the office of the Director we have to
assume it's going to hamper us whether or not they are misinformed.


To be clear here: the point made was that the Web Application Security 
group never asked for a review from the Web Applications working group 
prior to asking for transition to CR. As a consequence, the WebApps 
group did not get an opportunity to review the Upgrade Insecure 
Resources specification [1], including the reference related to Web Workers.
As a reminder, there is an expectation that the specification has 
received wide review prior to the publication of a Candidate Recommendation.


Philippe

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/upgrade-insecure-requests/